Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Reciprocity: Built to Fail From the Beginning?

  1. #1
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Reciprocity: Built to Fail From the Beginning?

    Quote Originally Posted by Repeater View Post
    Governor Terry McAuliffe’s ‘Red Herring’

    “Ironically, earlier this year a liberal TV station in Raleigh, [North Carolina] raised the question of whether Virginia permit requirements are sufficiently stringent to allow Virginia permits to be used here.

    Now, liberal Democrats in Virginia are claiming our permit standards aren’t sufficiently stringent.
    This post in another thread helped me to flesh out an idea that has been lingering in the back of my head ever since this hit the news. It is quite possible that the very idea of reciprocity, as manifest in the requirement that other states' rules must be "at least as stringent" as our own, is a fraud, cleverly designed to fail in ALL states, from the very beginning.

    How so?

    Consider the 20 disqualifiers for a CHP found in the Code of Virginia. Of the 20, 10 come with some arbitrary number or time limit, which I will paste here for your consideration:

    2. An individual who was ineligible to possess a firearm pursuant to Section 18.2-308.1:1 and who was discharged from the custody of the Commissioner pursuant to Section 19.2-182.7 less than five years before the date of his application for a concealed handgun permit.

    3. An individual who was ineligible to possess a firearm pursuant to Section 18.2-308.1:2 and whose competency or capacity was restored pursuant to former Section 37.1-134.1 or Section 37.2-1012 less than five years before the date of his application for a concealed handgun permit.

    4. An individual who was ineligible to possess a firearm under Section 18.2-308.1:3 and who was released from commitment less than five years before the date of this application for a concealed handgun permit.

    7. An individual who has been convicted of two or more misdemeanors within the five-year period immediately preceding the application, if one of the misdemeanors was a Class 1 misdemeanor, but the judge shall have the discretion to deny a permit for two or more misdemeanors that are not Class 1. Traffic infractions or reckless driving shall not be considered for purposes of this disqualification.

    9. An individual who has been convicted of a violation of Section 18.2-266 or a substantially similar local ordinance, or of public drunkenness, or of a substantially similar offense under the laws of any other state, the District of Columbia, the United States, or its territories within the three-year period immediately preceding the application, or who is a habitual drunkard as determined pursuant to Section 4.1-33.

    14. An individual who has been convicted of any assault, assault and battery, sexual battery, discharging of a firearm in violation of Section 18.2-280 or Section 18.2-286.1 or brandishing of a firearm in violation of Section 18.2-282 within the three-year period immediately preceding the application.

    16. An individual whose previous convictions or adjudications of delinquency were based on an offense which would have been at the time of conviction a felony if committed by an adult under the laws of any state, the District of Columbia, the United States or its territories. For purposes of this disqualifier, only convictions occurring within sixteen years following the later of the date of (i) the conviction or adjudication or (ii) release from any incarceration imposed upon such conviction or adjudication shall be deemed to be "previous convictions."

    18. An individual who has received mental health treatment or substance abuse treatment in a residential setting within five years prior to the date of his application for a concealed handgun permit.

    19. An individual not otherwise ineligible pursuant to this section, who, within the three-year period immediately preceding the application for the permit, was found guilty of any criminal offense set forth in Article 1 (Section 18.2-247 et seq.) of Chapter 7 of this title or of a criminal offense of illegal possession or distribution of marijuana or any controlled substance, under the laws of any state, the District of Columbia, or the United States or its territories.

    20. An individual, not otherwise ineligible pursuant to this section, with respect to whom, within the three-year period immediately preceding the application, upon a charge of any criminal offense set forth in Article 1 (Section 18.2-247 et seq.) of Chapter 7 of this title or upon a charge of illegal possession or distribution of marijuana or any controlled substance under the laws of any state, the District of Columbia, or the United States or its territories, the trial court found that the facts of the case were sufficient for a finding of guilt and disposed of the case pursuant to Section 18.2-251 or the substantially similar law of any other state, the District of Columbia, or the United States or its territories.

    In addition to those 10, #13 is a completely arbitrary requirement, which essentially throws us back to the days of "may issue."

    13. An individual who the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, based on specific acts by the applicant, is likely to use a weapon unlawfully or negligently to endanger others. The sheriff, chief of police, or attorney for the Commonwealth may submit to the court a sworn written statement indicating that, in the opinion of such sheriff, chief of police, or attorney for the Commonwealth, based upon a disqualifying conviction or upon the specific acts set forth in the statement, the applicant is likely to use a weapon unlawfully or negligently to endanger others. The statement of the sheriff, chief of police, or the attorney for the Commonwealth shall be based upon personal knowledge of such individual or of a deputy sheriff, police officer, or assistant attorney for the Commonwealth of the specific acts, or upon a written statement made under oath before a notary public of a competent person having personal knowledge of the specific acts.

    These 10 disqualifiers with numbers and time periods attached, and this one disqualifier that is arbitrary, can be compared against other states' laws in such a way as to leave NEITHER state compliant with the other's requirements. When you have TEN disqualifiers based on times, all you have to do is set some of yours longer, and some of yours shorter than the other state's rules, and just like magic, there will be mismatching disqualifiers, and NOBODY has reciprocity!

    As far as #13, this essentially rules out any "shall issue" state, unless they happen to have their own ill-defined "shall issue loophole" built into their code as well. I would suspect that #13 is the mismatch for most of those 25 states, but I guess we will have to wait for the "audit" reports to be published to know for sure.

    Among all the many other consequences that Herring and McAuliffe are setting themselves up for, this little debacle of theirs may very well pave the road to a National Reciprocity Law going into effect very soon after the next President takes office.

    TFred

  2. #2
    Regular Member BlueSquid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Chesapeake, VA
    Posts
    113
    #18 always got me. There is no distinction between someone who walks in themselves and someone who is court ordered. Nor does it allow for those with zero violent tendencies to still get a license. And, as far as I know, it makes no concession for people who sought treatment to deal with an understandable traumatic even, ie loss of a loved one. In a world that, by and large, greatly misunderstands mental illness and perpetuates a negative stigma towards those who are open about it, VA is doing it's best to not help out. Talk about discouraging people from seeking help...

    I'm no lawyer, so maybe my understanding of that application and the laws behind it is off...but the wording is intimidating enough that I'd bet it's kept more than a few people from either applying or seeing a doctor.

    And again, as you say, 5 years to the day and *POOF* it's like it never happened? I mean at least it's not as serious as having to go through rights restoral, but certainly seems to be an arbitrary number. Who decided 5 years was the magic recovery time, from any of those things, and why?
    Last edited by BlueSquid; 12-27-2015 at 05:03 AM. Reason: Expanding on point

  3. #3
    Regular Member paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,448
    In my opinion #13 completely removes Virginia from shall issue status.

    Way back when, I was charged with a crime that had nothing to do with violence. My neighbor charged me with brandishing solely because he saw me carry a firearm from my car to my residence. I was not convicted. But my Sheriff still used it as a disqualifier for a CHP. I ended up moving to a different jurisdiction and waited five years to apply for a renewal, which I did receive.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,630
    Hmmm - I think the commitment has to be involuntary.

    Requires a court order or an involuntary commitment to a mental health facility
    .......Virginia.......
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-mentally-ill/

    12. Have you ever been involuntarily admitted to a facility or involuntarily ordered to outpatient mental health treatment?
    http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_PurchaseEligibility.shtm

    §18.2-308.1:3 Purchase, Possession or Transportation of Firearm by Persons Involuntarily Committed
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 12-28-2015 at 06:39 AM. Reason: added
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  5. #5
    Regular Member BlueSquid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Chesapeake, VA
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Hmmm - I think the commitment has to be involuntary.

    Requires a court order or an involuntary commitment to a mental health facility
    .......Virginia.......
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-mentally-ill/

    12. Have you ever been involuntarily admitted to a facility or involuntarily ordered to outpatient mental health treatment?
    http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_PurchaseEligibility.shtm

    §18.2-308.1:3 Purchase, Possession or Transportation of Firearm by Persons Involuntarily Committed

    You certainly could be right. But the wording is unclear. Given the potential consequences, for someone who falls into that gray area, it'd be nice to know exactly what the question is asking, I imagine.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueSquid View Post
    You certainly could be right. But the wording is unclear. Given the potential consequences, for someone who falls into that gray area, it'd be nice to know exactly what the question is asking, I imagine.
    Constitutional Carry, Alaska style, is the solution to this problem.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Hmmm - I think the commitment has to be involuntary.

    Requires a court order or an involuntary commitment to a mental health facility
    .......Virginia.......
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-mentally-ill/

    12. Have you ever been involuntarily admitted to a facility or involuntarily ordered to outpatient mental health treatment?
    http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_PurchaseEligibility.shtm

    §18.2-308.1:3 Purchase, Possession or Transportation of Firearm by Persons Involuntarily Committed
    That's a relief to some. LOL

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •